Step 4: Case Synthesis

Build a coherent case model from extracted entities

Back to Case
Supplanting - Promotion of Work by Former Employees
Step 4 of 5
Four-Phase Synthesis Pipeline
1
Entity Foundation
Passes 1-3
2
Analytical Extraction
2A-2E
3
Decision Synthesis
E1-E3 + LLM
4
Narrative
Timeline + Scenario
Phase 1 Entity Foundation
87 entities
Pass 1: Contextual Framework
  • 8 Roles
  • 14 States
  • 6 Resources
Pass 2: Normative Requirements
  • 4 Principles
  • 5 Obligations
  • 6 Constraints
  • 9 Capabilities
Pass 3: Temporal Dynamics
  • 35 Temporal Dynamics
Phase 2 Analytical Extraction
2A: Code Provisions 0
LLM detect algorithmic linking Case text + Phase 1 entities
No provisions extracted yet.
2B: Precedent Cases 6
LLM extraction Case text
Case 76-5 supporting
For the supplanting standard to apply, the facts must demonstrate that the complaining engineer either had a contract for the work, or had been selected for negotiation by the client for the particular work.
Cases 62-10 supporting
Section 11(a) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms absent an existing contract or selection for negotiation.
62-18 supporting
Section 11(a) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms absent an existing contract or selection for negotiation.
64-9 supporting
Section 11(a) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms absent an existing contract or selection for negotiation.
73-7 supporting
Section 11(a) is not to be interpreted to give an engineer or firm a right to prevent other engineers from attempting to serve former clients of other firms absent an existing contract or selection for negotiation.
Case 75-15 supporting
The words 'maliciously or falsely' are not a necessary element to find that §12 applies when the purpose of the criticism is clearly to prevent, hinder, or otherwise put obstacles in the path of another engineer.
2C: Questions & Conclusions 18 20
Board text parsed LLM analytical Q&C LLM Q-C linking Case text + 2A provisions
Questions (18)
Question_1 Did the four engineers who founded Firm B violate the Code of Ethics by seeking work from former clients of Engineer A?
Question_2 Did the four engineers comprising Firm B act unethically in casting doubt on the ability of Engineer A to provide quality services?
Question_3 Did Engineer A act unethically in casting doubt on the ability of Firm B to provide quality services?
Question_101 Where exactly is the line between general familiarity with a former client and the kind of particular project knowledge that triggers a supplanting vi...
Question_102 Does the simultaneous, coordinated resignation of four key employees to immediately form a competing firm raise ethical concerns about loyalty during ...
Question_103 What remedies or corrective obligations should apply to the four engineers for the specific projects where they had particular knowledge, as distinct ...
Question_104 Should former clients bear any responsibility for relaying disparaging comments between the two firms, and did this disclosure itself create an incent...
Question_201 How should the principle of Loyalty During Employment be balanced against Fair Competition in Client Solicitation when former employees leave to compe...
Question_202 Does the principle of Objectivity in Peer Criticism conflict with Fair Competition in Client Solicitation when disparaging remarks about a rival's com...
Question_203 How should the profession balance an engineer's right to defend the reputation of their firm under Fair Competition in Client Solicitation against the...
Question_301 From a deontological perspective, did the four engineers fulfill their duty to refrain from using confidential or particular client knowledge gained d...
Question_302 Did the outcome of increased competition for clients justify the four engineers' broad solicitation of Engineer A's former client base, even though it...
Question_303 Did the four engineers of Firm B act with professional integrity when they cast doubt on Engineer A's ability to provide quality services, given that ...
Question_304 Did the outcome of protecting Firm A's reputation and client relationships justify Engineer A's decision to cast doubt on Firm B's competence in respo...
Question_401 If none of the four engineers had been personally involved with the former clients' projects while employed by Engineer A, would the Board still have ...
Question_402 If Engineer A had been the first to cast doubt on the competing firm's competence, before hearing that Firm B had disparaged him, would the Board stil...
Question_403 If the projects the four engineers pursued had already been formally awarded to Firm A rather than merely under discussion, would the Board still conc...
Question_404 If the four engineers had waited a substantial period after resigning before contacting Engineer A's former clients, rather than doing so promptly, wo...
Conclusions (20)
Conclusion_1 The four engineers who founded firm B did not violate the Code of Ethics by generally seeking work from former clients of Engineer A, but they were in...
Conclusion_2 The four engineers comprising Firm B acted unethically in casting doubt on the ability of Engineer A to provide quality services.
Conclusion_3 Engineer A acted unethically in casting doubt on the ability of Firm B to provide quality services.
Conclusion_101 The Board's distinction between generally permissible solicitation and impermissible supplanting turns on a factual question—whether particular knowle...
Conclusion_102 The Board's finding of violation for particular-knowledge projects implies a remedial obligation that goes beyond mere condemnation: the four engineer...
Conclusion_103 The Board's parallel findings against both Firm B's engineers and Engineer A for disparaging remarks reveal a structural asymmetry the Board does not ...
Conclusion_201 The line separating permissible general familiarity from prohibited particular knowledge (Q101) appears to turn on whether the engineer's prior involv...
Conclusion_202 Regarding Q102, the simultaneous and coordinated resignation of four key employees to immediately form a competing firm raises a distinct loyalty conc...
Conclusion_203 On Q103, appropriate corrective action for the four engineers would logically be limited to withdrawal from, or disclosure of conflict regarding, thos...
Conclusion_204 In response to Q201, the tension between Loyalty During Employment and Fair Competition in Client Solicitation is resolved by a temporal and knowledge...
Conclusion_205 Addressing Q202, the tension between Objectivity in Peer Criticism and Fair Competition in Client Solicitation cannot be reconciled by framing dispara...
Conclusion_206 From a deontological standpoint (Q301), the four engineers had an unconditional duty not to exploit specific client knowledge gained through their emp...
Conclusion_207 Regarding Q303, the four engineers' disparaging remarks about Engineer A's capacity to deliver quality services are best understood as self-serving co...
Conclusion_208 On Q304, even though Engineer A's counter-disparagement was arguably provoked and defensive in motivation, the Code's objectivity requirement does not...
Conclusion_209 In answer to the counterfactual Q401, if none of the four engineers had personal involvement with the former clients' specific projects, the Board wou...
Conclusion_210 For counterfactual Q402, had Engineer A initiated the disparagement before learning of Firm B's remarks, the Board would likely still have characteriz...
Conclusion_211 Considering Q403, if the projects had already been formally awarded to Firm A rather than merely under discussion, the ethical calculus would likely s...
Conclusion_301 The tension between Loyalty During Employment and Fair Competition in Client Solicitation was resolved not by favoring one principle categorically ove...
Conclusion_302 The conflict between Objectivity in Peer Criticism and Fair Competition in Client Solicitation was not resolved in favor of either party's competitive...
Conclusion_303 This case demonstrates a hierarchy in which Objectivity in Peer Criticism functions as a near-absolute constraint that cannot be traded off against co...
2D: Transformation Classification
stalemate 62%
LLM classification Phase 1 entities + 2C Q&C

Two parallel stalemates emerge: (1) Loyalty-During-Employment and Fair-Competition remain simultaneously valid, with the Board drawing a fact-dependent line (particular knowledge vs. general familiarity) rather than categorically subordinating one principle to the other; (2) Objectivity-in-Peer-Criticism and Fair-Competition remain in tension because both Firm B and Engineer A are found equally liable for disparagement despite each claiming a competitive/defensive justification, meaning neither obligation is allowed to override the other and both actors are locked into violation regardless of who provoked whom.

Reasoning

The Board's conclusions repeatedly acknowledge that multiple valid but incompatible obligations coexist without a clean prioritization: Loyalty During Employment persists as a bounded, information-specific duty even as Fair Competition in Client Solicitation is affirmed as the default rule (C10, C18), and Objectivity in Peer Criticism is held to trump Fair Competition for BOTH parties simultaneously (C11, C19), leaving Firm B and Engineer A mutually 'trapped' in violation of the same rule they each invoked to justify their conduct. The Board explicitly declines to operationalize a clear test distinguishing permissible familiarity from prohibited particular knowledge (C4) and leaves the asymmetry between initiating and retaliatory disparagement unresolved (C6), which is the hallmark of stakeholders unable to escape the competing rule-set rather than a clean transfer, oscillation, or delayed-discovery pattern.

2E: Rich Analysis (Causal Links, Question Emergence, Resolution Patterns)
LLM batched analysis label-to-URI resolution Phase 1 entities + 2C Q&C + 2A provisions
Causal-Normative Links (7)
CausalLink_Simultaneous Resignation Because the simultaneous resignation carries no explicit normative violation yet directly triggers key personnel loss and the formation of a new compe...
CausalLink_New Firm Formation Forming the new firm is guided by fair competition norms rather than judged as fulfilling or violating them, which matters because this founding act i...
CausalLink_Client Solicitation Client solicitation is guided by fair competition and causally produces both the client retention outreach by Engineer A and the ethics protest filing...
CausalLink_Client Retention Outreach Engineer A's client retention outreach, guided by fair competition and caused by the prior solicitation, matters because it represents a responsive co...
CausalLink_Disparagement of Competitor The disparagement of a competitor is significant because it violates the duty not to injure another engineer's reputation and this violation directly ...
CausalLink_Counter-Disparagement of Competitor Because Engineer A's counter-disparagement arose directly as a retaliatory response to Firm B's disparagement disclosure, it violates the Section 12 d...
CausalLink_Ethics Protest Filing Since the ethics protest filing was caused by the client solicitation stemming from the engineers' departure and use of specialized knowledge, Enginee...
Question Emergence (18)
QuestionEmergence_1 The question arises because the same set of actions, resigning and starting a competing firm, can be framed either as legitimate professional mobility...
QuestionEmergence_2 The question arose because the same act of casting doubt on a competitor's ability can be read either as honest professional judgment or as malicious ...
QuestionEmergence_3 The question arose because Engineer A's criticism of Firm B occurred in the context of Mutual Self-Interested Criticism Between A and B, making it unc...
QuestionEmergence_4 The question emerged because the engineers' simultaneous departure and new firm formation created a situation where their knowledge base was ambiguous...
QuestionEmergence_5 The question arises because the facts show only internal coordination and departure without direct evidence of solicitation, leaving open whether loya...
QuestionEmergence_6 The question arises because the Board of Ethical Review must distinguish a blanket permission (soliciting former clients) from a narrower duty (not ex...
QuestionEmergence_7 The question arose because Disparagement Disclosure sits between two firms locked in mutual self-interested criticism, making it unclear whether the t...
QuestionEmergence_8 The question arises because the same set of facts, engineers with specialized client knowledge leaving en masse to compete, can be read either as legi...
QuestionEmergence_9 The question arose because Engineer A's critical remarks about Firm B occurred simultaneously with active client solicitation by both firms, making it...
QuestionEmergence_10 The question emerges because both Firm A and Engineer A/Firm B claim their critical statements were factual competitive responses rather than violatio...
QuestionEmergence_11 The question arises because the boundary between prohibited use of confidential client knowledge and permissible use of general professional experienc...
QuestionEmergence_12 The question arose because the outcome (increased competition and harm to Firm A) can be justified or condemned depending on whether one privileges fr...
QuestionEmergence_13 The question arises because the same disclosed criticism serves both a professional evaluative function and a competitive self-interest function, and ...
QuestionEmergence_14 The question arises because a mutual exchange of disparaging remarks blurs the line between legitimate reputational defense and prohibited malicious c...
QuestionEmergence_15 The question arises because the Board's original finding conflated personal project involvement with the broader ethical bar on supplanting, and remov...
QuestionEmergence_16 The question arises because the Board's ethical characterization rested on the specific sequence of mutual disparagement, and reversing that sequence ...
QuestionEmergence_17 The question arises because the Board's ruling hinged on a specific factual condition (projects still under discussion, not awarded) that functions as...
QuestionEmergence_18 The question arises because the Board's finding hinges on the temporal proximity between resignation and solicitation as evidence of supplanting, so a...
Resolution Patterns (20)
ResolutionPattern_1 Given that the four engineers broadly solicited former clients using only general familiarity, the board found this permissible competition, but becau...
ResolutionPattern_2 Given that Firm B's engineers cast doubt on Engineer A's competence while actively competing for his former clients, the board concluded this crossed ...
ResolutionPattern_3 Given that Engineer A responded in kind by casting doubt on Firm B's competence within the same competitive dynamic, the board concluded that reciproc...
ResolutionPattern_4 Given that the board's distinction in Conclusion_1 rested on an undefined factual line, this conclusion proposes that the line should instead be drawn...
ResolutionPattern_5 Given that the Board condemned the particular-knowledge solicitation without prescribing a remedy, this conclusion infers that disclosure to affected ...
ResolutionPattern_6 Given that Firm B's remarks came first and unprompted, while Engineer A's came only after learning of them secondhand, the Board still found both to v...
ResolutionPattern_7 Because some engineers merely knew a company was a potential client through general professional awareness, while others were personally involved in s...
ResolutionPattern_8 Given that the four engineers waited until after resignation to contact clients, the Board's silence on internal pre-departure planning suggests it tr...
ResolutionPattern_9 Because the Board's earlier finding permitted broad solicitation but flagged only certain projects as tainted by particular knowledge, the appropriate...
ResolutionPattern_10 Given that the four engineers' solicitation occurred after their employment ended and was based on general professional standing rather than confident...
ResolutionPattern_11 Given that both firms were vying for the same clients and each made disparaging statements about the other's competence, the Board concluded that fram...
ResolutionPattern_12 Because the four engineers had particular knowledge of certain projects from their employment with Engineer A, the Board applied a duty-based rule bar...
ResolutionPattern_13 Because the four engineers cast doubt on Engineer A's capabilities precisely while soliciting his former clients, the Board treated this simultaneity ...
ResolutionPattern_14 Although Engineer A's counter-disparagement was arguably provoked and aimed at protecting his firm's reputation, the Board concluded that this defensi...
ResolutionPattern_15 If none of the four engineers had personal involvement with the former clients' specific projects, the Board reasoned that the uncommitted status of t...
ResolutionPattern_16 Because Conclusion 3 was grounded in the objective content and effect of Engineer A's statements rather than in who provoked whom, the Board reasoned ...
ResolutionPattern_17 Given that the actual projects were still under discussion and not yet contracted, the Board found general solicitation permissible, but it signaled t...
ResolutionPattern_18 Because some client relationships were general while specific project knowledge existed for particular engagements, the Board resolved the loyalty ver...
ResolutionPattern_19 Because both firms disparaged each other while claiming competitive necessity or factual justification, the Board concluded that Fair Competition neve...
ResolutionPattern_20 Because the Board found mutual, unconditional violations on criticism but only a partial, fact-contingent violation on solicitation, it concluded that...
Phase 3 Decision Point Synthesis
Decision Point Synthesis (E1-E3 + Q&C Alignment + LLM)
E1-E3 algorithmic Q&C scoring LLM refinement Phase 1 entities + 2C Q&C + 2E rich analysis
E1
Obligation Coverage
-
E2
Action Mapping
-
E3
Composition
-
Q&C
Alignment
-
LLM
Refinement
-
Phase 4 Narrative Construction
Narrative Elements (Event Calculus + Scenario Seeds)
algorithmic base LLM enhancement Phase 1 entities + Phase 3 decision points
4.1
Characters
-
4.2
Timeline
-
4.3
Conflicts
-
4.4
Decisions
-
Review Entities & Commit View Synthesis

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3